Tuesday, 4 November 2008

Can Anyone Make Sense Of This?

I read theological tomes regularly, some because I have to if I want to chip away at a degree, some (and I suppose this marks me as a truly sad and cloistered soul) because I actually find them fascinating.

But can anyone make sense of this?

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I didn't even bother waiting for the PDF to load, the title had me ROFL.

Sounds like it's a rehash of "Nature of Gawd/PG Letter ca. '93 or so. Senior got it wrong then too, at least according to the evangelicals he was trying to bed down with, so it's no surprise Junior and Weazell don't know whether they're coming or going. Nor which end is up.

Jack said...

Of course not, it's from Joe's church. The Mighty Church of Joe the Younger.
You will put your liver into a twist if you try to understand things from there.
Just do some yoga, have a cup of tea and relax.

Stop-You'll Go Blind! said...

Explaining the "Fullies" (Fully God-Fully Human) is a classic case of Mental Masturbation.

"Intellectual activity that serves no practical purpose."

"The act of engaging in useless yet intellectually stimulating conversation, usually as an excuse to avoid taking constructive action in your life."

"The act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure theologies to cultural movements in preindustrial societies."

"Mental Masturbation is either delivered through grand monologues or subtle conversation orientation It links large words and random references resulting in nothing actually being communicated."

Anonymous said...

Sometimes "clarification" only muddies the waters. Why do they feel the need to make things so complicated and write long treatises on topics they are just becoming aware of?

Anonymous said...

Well, if you gave us the Readers Digest version I might take a few minutes to try, but this? Sheeesh! Not enough minutes in the day to bother.

Anonymous said...

The crux of the matter is this fundamental flaw in their theology which they illustrate very well in their document.

If all are reconciled already to God in Christ, why does Scripture say so much about repentance and faith? In answer to this important question, let us begin with what WCG president, Dr. Joseph Tkach wrote in his letter to donors dated April 2008:

"When they were coming to faith [many Christians] were told that unless and until they repent and believe, they are utterly separated from God and the blood of Jesus Christ does not and cannot apply to them. Believing his error then led them to believe another error—that any time they fall back into sin, God withdraws this grace and the blood of Christ no longer covers them. That’s why, if they are honest with themselves about their sinfulness, they worry throughout their Christian lives about whether God has rejected them. The gospel does not tell us that we are separated from God and that we must do something in order for God to extend his grace to us. The gospel tells us that in Jesus Christ, God the Father reconciled all things, including you and me, including all humans, with himself.


Sorry, but the scriptures state just the opposite. Mankind is alienated from God until repentence and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ reconciles us to God the Father.

Shame on you, Keith Brittain, for putting your name on this document!

smoke and mirrors said...

WCG makes much, as do literalists and evangelicals of the First man Adam and Jesus as the Second Adam.

Sadly, and of course, this logic collapses under the weight of the Adam and Eve story being reversals of Sumerian and Mesopotamian Creation Mythologies.

On the literally occuring Original Sin, a doctrine concocted later in church history for it's own reasons, that didn't really happen, has profound implications for the NT as presented.

The "Let us make man in our image" , so confidently declared to be El speaking with Jesus as from the foundation of the world, is bogus. The "Us" is the Council of the gods that also feared that if man ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, info only for the gods, then also the tree of life and be like them, well...that just wasn't going to happen! Drive them out. There is NO Jesus spoken to or of in Genesis. No second person of some pagan trinity.

As we know making a scripture mean what it never meant never has a good ending.

If something never happened in reality, one cannot connect it to some other real event in any real way and thus the perceived lesson is moot.

Women don't really have to keep silent in church because Eve sinned and not the man.

Women don't really come from men as the rib story is well...ribbing us.

One can't draw these conclusions based on mythological non events.

Alas, humans do it all the time.

WCG has become very adept at smoke and mirrors theology.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that it is the WCG adopting Calvinism, while claiming they have not adopted Calvinism. SOP for the WCG. It does not have much to do with the trinity and as an atrinitarian I really do not see much to disagree with except for the equivocation on Calvinism.

Positive Dennis

Eusleazius the Fabricator said...

"....so after five centuries of controversy over the nature of the trinity, this was the magical formula constructed by the Church to enable the soul of the believer to enter the heavenly mansions.

The smallest skepticism entailed not only eternal damnation, but what was more to the point, temporal destruction as well.

"The Father is God, the Son is God, The Holy Ghost is God: and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. Whosoever could not comprehend this mystery and who dared to express any doubt concerning it was doomed to eternal hell; nor could he excape the terrible fate of the heretic.

And what had become of the declaration of Jesus that those on his left hand are accursed because they did not give meat to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, lodging to the homeless, comfort to the sick or fellowship to those in prison, but in which he said not one word concerning creed, belief or dogma?

All this is now dust unto dust and under dust to lie..."

Bill said...

I've gotten through about a 1/3 of the treatise, and I am starting to suffer from that nausea I did when reading through and critiquing the writings of Armstrong and others of the same ilk.

In a sense, the WCG is recreating the wheel, and following the path of the Catholic church in regards to Trinitarian theology. They could save themselves a lot of time (a thousand years, or so) if they were to but go and research the Trinity in the Catholic literature and see how they struggled with the concept down through the centuries; refining some concepts and totally dismissing others.

For instance, this "all means all" line of reasoning. So, when Jesus said a believer would be hated by all men, this would mean other believers also; after all, "all means all."

So far, all I see is the WCG groping in the dark, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, and unwilling to examine all the available evidence.

WCG needs to understand that the average convert to Christianity in the first century had no clue as to the nature of God in this regard, and that includes the Apostles with the possible exception of Paul, and I rather imagine he was too busy to be overly concerned with such details as are being covered in this article.

Jesus declared He and the Father were one. The pseudo-theologians in the WCG are busy trying to understand and comprehend how the three are different and unique. Looks like the focus is 180 out.

Bill Hohmann

Byker Bob said...

Original WCG was a man made organization, created by an ambitious high school dropout who lacked the capital to start a business based on tangible goods. He managed to convince many of the illusion that God actually had something to do with his "work".

Why would we assume that some of the same individuals who were brought up in that fake system suddenly actually became inspired by God and now had real truth to spread?

I'm going to use a Bob George analogy here. WCG, old and new, is like a room filled with both hearing and hearing impaired people. Some of the hearing people are listening to their ipod, and gyrating, tapping their toes, or snapping their fingers to the music, which they can actually hear. On seeing this, some of the hearing impaired people begin also to tap their toes rhythmically because it looks cool and they are attempting to relate. That's what we're dealing with in the case of the Armstrong movement, both old and "reformed".

I must have said this about a million times on the forums over the past decade: If these people really want to be of service to God and man, they should disband and distribute their assets to past contributors and tithe payers.

BB

The Third Witness said...

The quotations from Athanasius reminded me of something else he wrote (in the same treatise) which the old WCG would have been more comfortable with:

“For He was made man that we might be made God;”

(St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54.3)

And he was a Trinitarian if anyone was. (Another straw man bites the dust...)

I don’t think we’ve scratched the surface when it comes to reconciliation—either theologically or in practical everyday living.

Anonymous said...

"The gospel tells us that in Jesus Christ, God the Father reconciled all things, including you and me, including all humans, with himself."

I'm saved without even believing! What a glorious god, indeed!


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

I could not reply to your "Congratulations, America" entry, so I'll comment here.

Thanks for the congrats.
I did my little part here in Ohio.

Anonymous said...

"In a sense, the WCG is recreating the wheel, and following the path of the Catholic church in regards to Trinitarian theology."

LOL! Maybe that will get rid of the GRUMPs for once and for all, embracing the Great Whore of Babylon like that! :-D

larry said...

Well, since you didn't put a place for replies under the Obama sign, I too, will reply here.

Gavin, I am afraid that you Kiwis do not understand. This is the beginning of the END of democracy in America. Obama and his followers regularly use the language of demagogues. He is "chosen" to "save the world" and is "The One" with a "righteous wind at his back". Now, you have criticized HWA et al for using such rhetoric, but no leader of any COG ever had true coercive political and military power at his disposal.

Obama is a snake-oil salesman par excellence. His election is NOT a good thing, and there is no reason for anyone in the Western world to celebrate.

Anonymous said...

"I could not reply to your "Congratulations, America" entry, so I'll comment here.

Thanks for the congrats.
I did my little part here in Ohio."

Yep, and now we're all gonna pay a heavy price. Israel has no alternative but to go to war against Iran now. Israel knows Obama's support will be very limited. The first signs have already begun:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225715342045&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel is going to plunge the world into a major confrontation in an attempt to secure their safety and national intertests. Our election of President elect Obama has sent them a clear message: You're on your own! Americans are not interested in any more wars in the Middle East. We want our troops to come home! This will be Israel's mandate to act unilaterally.

This is what Sen. Joseph Biden was referring to when he spoke of Obama being "tested" soon after he takes office. Israel knows it has until Jan. 20th to do what it needs to do, because after that, Obama will begin talks with Tehran while they stall to build a bomb. McCain said that he would not sit down with the Iranians for talks until they complied with the resolutions.

It's a done deal folks. It's going to happen because there is no other option for Israel now! Israel WILL act! You need to be storing up food, water, and necessary emergency supplies. The next six months are going to be trying times.

Anonymous said...

"Israel has no alternative but to go to war against Iran now..."

Israel wanted to take care of the problem a little while back by bombing Iran, but the Bush administration said they wouldn't back it- basically saying, "no, you can't do that." So Israel had no alternative Then, not just Now.

"You're on your own! Americans are not interested in any more wars in the Middle East. We want our troops to come home!"

Of course. Why on earth do I want my country to be involved in bloody wars in the Middle East. We may as well involve ourselves in wars in Africa or Asia, for that matter. And the best thing we can do for Israel is "let" Israel take care of itself, which it is very capable of doing. Our current policy sends our money to Israel AND her Arab enemies, and involves dictating what Israel can and can't do. Jesus, what a mess.

How about we quit playing World Boss?


Paul Ray

Robert said...

Obama's victory was not really so unpredictable. The media seemed to favour him and swayed public opinion behind him. The Democrats had a young charasmatic candidate whereas the Rupublicans put forward a 70 plus old grandad with as much charm as Pope Benedict. It seems to me that the powers that be wanted Obama to win thereby putting forward a duff opponent.

Obama put forward the same rhetoric as Tony Blair "Change" or "Time for Change". People were tired of the Conservatives so they voted for change with help from the media who presented Blair as the ideal candidate and we all know what happened next.

Personally I would have voted for
Ron Paul but the crafty media didn't like his outspoken criticism of the establishment. But that is the dirty world of politics.

Well done Obama, at least you have put an end to the Bush legacy and the insanity of an attack on Iran.

Jared Olar said...

Your congratulations are misplaced, Gavin, and "democracy" had little to do with yesterday's victory of Chicago-style politics on a galactic scale. Clear thinkers who see the moral abyss into which the U.S. is slipping can only don sackcloth today. Now all we can do is hope for change (yes, we can), and pray that Obama doesn't screw things up too badly during the next four years. It will probably get worse before it gets better, if it gets better any time soon, that is.

It wasn't all bad news, though. California, Arizona, and Florida approved some much needed constitutional amendments, reestablishing the fundamental institution of human marriage in Californian and protecting it in Arizona and Florida.

Anonymous said...

"Your congratulations are misplaced, Gavin, and "democracy" had little to do with yesterday's victory of Chicago-style politics on a galactic scale..."


If it weren't for increased government, massive debt, loss of civil liberties, and Vietnam Part II, then I think McCain may have had a better chance.

The GOP deserves the trouncing they received- and according to what I have read, they still don't understand why.

I suggest they listen to "kooky" Ron Paul.



Paul Ray

larry said...

Robert,
I am guessing that you are a Brit. Can't tell for sure. The reason Ron Paul didn't win is that he is nutty as a fruitcake. You would not be a fan.

As for an "attack on Iran", that may still happen, and may be necessary. Israel WILL NOT stand by and allow the Persians to acquire the bomb. Something will be done.

One good thing that Obama did accomplish is that he removed Hillary Clinton from a shot at the Presidency. Hillary (my opinion) is genuinely evil. Obama is not. He is an idealogue, a committed socialist, ignorant about economics, and clueless about foreign policy.

The biggest problem is that he will be surrounded (in his inner circle) by folks with a true hard-left agenda. They will expect payback for getting him to the White House. People outside the USA will not like their policies, which will be isolationist and protectionist. We are looking at a situation very similar to 1932.

Que said...

The Israel government isn't talking about "acting unilaterally", if this report is accurate :-

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni says she does not expect the stance of the new United States administration on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to differ substantially from that of the previous administration."

"Speaking Thursday on Reshet Bet radio, Livni said that though president-elect Barack Obama supports dialogue with Iran, he is vehemently opposed to Tehran's acquiring nuclear arms. She said the disagreement is only over how to prevent this from happening. Livni said that Israel continues to lobby for stepping up sanctions on Tehran, and to caution the US administration that shifting from sanctions to dialogue could send a message of weakness."

Anonymous said...

What I already don't like and didn't realize until election night is that Joe Biden concurrently ran for re-election to his senate seat, and won. I don't think an American should be able to run for two offices at the same time, now that he won, he will obviously resign his newly re-elected senate seat and that position will be appointed by the governer of Delware and the appointee will serve a full senate term without ever having been elected to the office. This is probably going to happen with the guy he has asked to be his cheif of staff and with John Kerry (who was also just re-elected) if he is tapped for secretary of state.

That isn't democracy, that is uncomfortably close to something far less appealing.

In the meantime, Obama will be my new president on 20 January 2009 and I'll support him until he gives me solid reasons not to.

Anonymous said...

"The reason Ron Paul didn't win is that he is nutty as a fruitcake."

Why is Ron Paul "nutty as a fruitcake?" Care to explain?


Paul Ray

Robert said...

Barack O bama:

Barack, also transliterated as Baraq in Hebrew, is LIGHTNING (Strongs Hebrew word 1300). Even in Greek, Barak is LIGHTNING (Strongs Greek word 913)

“O” or “U”. It is primarily used as a conjunction to join concepts together.

BAMA (Strongs Hebrew word 1116) is used to refer to the “Heights” of Heaven (Isaiah 14:14).

Barack O Bama would translate literally as Lightning and the “Heights” of the sky or heaven!

http://sollogs.com/news/satanbarack.html

Strong Arm's House Waterer said...

Robert noted:

Barack O bama:

Barack, also transliterated as Baraq in Hebrew, is LIGHTNING (Strongs Hebrew word 1300). Even in Greek, Barak is LIGHTNING (Strongs Greek word 913)

Robert....cut the Gerald Waterhouse crap.

Leonardo said...

Paul Ray wrote:
"Why is Ron Paul "nutty as a fruitcake?" Care to explain?"

There you go again, Paul, asking people to actually explain their nutty assertions, and thereby forcing them to have to think through and come up with evidence for what they so confidently say!!

Don't you think that's asking a bit much for some of the commentators on this blog site?!

Leonardo said...

Sorry, Larry, America is a republic, NOT a democracy.

Read the history of the founding era - the Founders warned against a democracy, and instead chose a republic.

Leonardo said...

Anonymous 9:13 wrote:
"It's a done deal folks. It's going to happen because there is no other option for Israel now! Israel WILL act! You need to be storing up food, water, and necessary emergency supplies. The next six months are going to be trying times."

Sorry, Anonymous 9:13, but you just don't know what you are talking about.

Hey, why don't you start writing articles for Willy Dankenbring's magazine. I'm sure your "Oh my, the sky is falling, the sky is falling" mentality will fit right in there!

It's true that Israel may have to act with respect to Iranian nuclear intentions, but to say Obama (whom I don't trust, by the way, and didn't vote for) will abandon Israel is rather foolish.

What do you base this statement upon - you're deep and unfailing understanding of prophecy?

1975 In Prophecy Church of God said...

larry said, "The reason Ron Paul didn't win is that he is nutty as a fruitcake."

MY COMMENT - That's funny: an Armstrongite calling someone else "nutty as a fruit cake".

Richard

Jared Olar said...

"If it weren't for increased government, massive debt, loss of civil liberties, and Vietnam Part II, then I think McCain may have had a better chance."

Yes, that, and the fact that he was John McCain. It would have been an uphill slog no matter who the Republican candidate was, but the Democrats were pretty much assured of victory when McCain won the nomination. The Republicans were notably unmotivated to support "their" candidate until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, but that was probably too little, too late, and while she got the party base majority excited, she also worried and alienated a good minority of her party (while freaking out the Democrats who engaged in sick and twisted rape/sexual degradation fantasies about her). Well, the Republicans still might have been able to pull it off until the financial disaster -- after that, it was pretty much over, and it's amazing that McCain did as well as he did. I did cast my vote for McCain, but I couldn't really "support" him -- it's just that Obama would have been much worse, and a vote for McCain was the only reasonable chance of preventing Obama's election. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

Gerald Watermellon said...

I wonder what Barak Obama means in Slabovian or Hindistanian? How about Estonian or Portugese? Who ever started the idea that there was some magic in what a name meant in Hebrew?

Isra-EL "He struggles with EL" and just about everyone else they run up against.

The reason so many Italians are named "TONY" is because back in the old country, when they loaded them up for Ellis Island, NY, they just stamped "TO NY" on their heads.....

Rob said...

"... Obama ... a committed socialist,"

Where do people get bizarre ideas like this? Did you just read it in some conspiracy theory laced email?

His campaign received huge donations from capitalist corporations. I doubt he will do anything to upset his sponsors.

But of course I find most people (especially WCG alumni don't even know what "socialist" means).

"... ignorant about economics,..."

Apparently actual economists, poeple who spend their lives studying economics would disagree with you:
edstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127

"... and clueless about foreign policy...."

The previous president had not even traveled outside of his own country before becoming president. Now we have a president who has actually lived outside the US, traveled outside the US and has close family members born outside the US. Polls done outside the US found that Obama was favored over McCain by a wide majority in almost every country.

"...They will expect payback for getting him to the White House...."

Again his campaign was heavily funded by corporate donations. Hardly "hard left."

Rachael said...

Hello - I think this is a very interesting analysis of what may happen in the near term Obama administration.

http://www.billoreilly.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=-542816584675575929

Bamboo_bends said...

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry, but the scriptures state just the opposite. Mankind is alienated from God until repentence and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ reconciles us to God the Father.

Shame on you, Keith Brittain, for putting your name on this document!


I agree with Anonymous! The scriptures do support that view that man is alienated from God.

BUT THEN SO DOES MOST EVERY RELIGION INCLUDING ENVIROMENTALISM!

I wonder why Anonymous doesn't question why that is?

As to all you fallen ones, I'll give you the keys to success with God, for only $24.95! No divine mimicry here!

For the really devout among you, 33% of your income will do nicely!

I'll even print up the books with or without crosses!

Jared Olar said...

Hey Robert, that's some fancy etymology you've got there. So Obama is lightning from heaven, Satan.

I guess you're right. After all, on the day after the election, the Illinois Lottery "Pick 3" winning numbers came up (wait for it) . . .

666

Anonymous said...

Well, at least Barack got Jared commenting again.

Welcome back Jared!

Anonymous said...

There's an interesting parallel between Obama and the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Both provoked a kind of mass hysteria - not only in the UK and the USA but also around the world.

Dionysius the Wine Bibber said...

"There's an interesting parallel between Obama and the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Both provoked a kind of mass hysteria - not only in the UK and the USA but also around the world."

It's not interesting at all.

So did the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Britney Spears, Madonna, Michael Jackson and Chewbacca.

see? see...? This is what mental masturbation is!

Not that it matters, however

Obama - WikiName
Name: obama Origin: African Etymology: {{{etymology}}} Meaning (no case): bending, leaning ... The name Obama is said to be a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya.

Hebrew has nothing to do with anything unless one is Hebrew. And then it has nothing to do with anything for the Hebrew person. The meaning of names in some COG thinking is truly useless thought.

Waterhouse was sent to water the House of God, i.e. the church. More like pee on it to me, or perhaps hose it down and put out the fires of critical thinking.

Tkach was a weaver. Weaving schemes and themes that signified nothing.

Armstrong had a strong arm as in strong arming the brethren to give and comply without oversight.

Rod is the Rod of Iron we all just know will force the love of God, truth and Church into people, or else.

Weinland means "he who whines" because they both need to be in the witness protection program.

Flurry rhymes with slurry as in slurred speech.

Graham means bland cracker designed to lessen sexual urges.

Hinn means "he who hinders"

Bush means "he who hears the voice of God through vegetation."

amen

Anonymous said...

After noticing the comments of Bob & Rob under the heading Quack Attack (with the Lame Duck period of government) are we headed for the Obamanation of Desolation? (sic, sic, sick)

Leonardo said...

Hey, Rachael, thank you for that link to the Bill O'Reilly article.

I’m not a huge fan of O’Reilly, but he seems to have presented a fairly balanced perspective in that particular article.

It's a habit of mine to print off a hard copy of articles like this and file them away in my "prediction" folder, just to check up and see how accurate or inaccurate people's prognostications end up being when compared against the actual record.

Truly do I hope the best for the soon-to-be new President of the United States, but must admit to having some very serious reservations about Obama - as history too often shows that RHETORIC does not always translate into RESULTS.

The U.S. just has too many enemies in this world to be able to afford a President who proves to be weak in foreign affairs – especially in dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and potential events in the wider Middle East - but hopefully Biden can make up for Obama’s lack of experience in this area.

Anonymous said...

Leo,

Regarding Islamic Fundamentalists, take a look at this essay. I don't agree with all of it, but the categorization of Bin Laden's own words is startling.


http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_01_2_payne.pdf


Paul Ray

Rachael said...

Leonardo - just to clarify, Bill O'Reilly provides free access to this commentary from stratfor.com. George Freidman is the name of the person who actually does this type of analysis. I believe that good ol' Bill does use some of his commentary for his talking points memo on the show. I think it will be interesting to see in March or April what exactly everyone's opinion of Obama will be then.

Jared Olar said...

Well, I gave that WCG Trinitarian Theology paper a read-through. They sure like Karl Barth, don't they. I agree with a comment above that the WCG is kind of groping in the dark, more or less retracing the steps that the Catholic Church already took. Really, they could save themselves the trouble and just swim the Tiber. After all, they say they accept the definition of the Hypostatic Union from Chalcedon -- though they don't realise it, that's really not terribly far from accepting the definer of the Hypostatic Union at Chalcedon, St. Leo the Great, whose definition was acclaimed by the Chalcedonian Fathers as St. Peter speaking through the Pope.

One passage in their paper leaped out at me, the part where they decried the "Latin" theology that insisted Christ's human nature was sinless and pure. No way, the paper insists -- the Logos assumed a fallen, sinful, corrupt human nature!

So much for the doctrine they drilled into our heads back in the early 1990s about it being impossible for Jesus to sin . . . . I just have to wonder, then -- if Christ reconciled sinful humanity to God, who reconciled Christ's sinful human nature to God?

Those poor saps still haven't figured it out yet.

Anonymous said...

"After all, they say they accept the definition of the Hypostatic Union from Chalcedon"

Is that anything like the Hypostasis of the Archons, Jared? ;-)

Anonymous said...

""The gospel tells us that in Jesus Christ, God the Father reconciled all things, including you and me, including all humans, with himself."

I'm saved without even believing! What a glorious god, indeed!"


Sounds good to me. But men create their own gods.

Leonardo said...

Rachael,

Perhaps I'm guilty of wishful thinking here, but hopefully once Obama begins occupying The White House, and starts confronting the ACTUAL FACTS and REALITIES such as only a president (along with only a handful of others) has access to, he'll become more centrist in his views.

I'll never forget a video I once saw of an interview with John F. Kennedy conducted by veteran CBS newsman Walter Cronkite - filmed in August of 1963 (about three months before Kennedy was assassinated).

You could tell Kennedy really spoke from the heart about how it was so comparatively easy to make the pre-election speeches and promises, but once a president begins confronting the actual realities, such as having access to highly-classified top-secret information, he begins to realize how limited he really is at effecting actual constructive, long-range change, how limited the U.S. is in altering the failure-oriented policies of other nations it tries to influence, how as president one is surrounded by the best and brightest minds that can be brought together in an administration, and then who often provide contrary information and conflicting advice, and how the speeches are much easier to make than the final decisions, etc.

Obama will soon find out what every president before him has: that being an effective president is a LOT harder job than it appears to be on the surface.